R
ramshorn
Guest
And I am not a resident of Arizona. I am a resident of a western state in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And IMHO, any state that severely discrimates in favor of its residents against non-residents, for any public use opportunities to be found on FEDERAL land, deserves to have its rules found unconstitutional.
Contrary to what is often stated on this site, the state of Arizona does not OWN the wildlife found on federal land. The wildlife on federal land is owned by the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, period. The federal government has delegated to the states the authority to manage the wildlife found on federal land (thank God), but this delegation of authority, which can be removed, is expressly for the purpose of providing for the betterment of the wildlife. No resident of Arizona has ever adequately explained how or why it is to the betterment of wildlife on federal land to be hunted by a resident of Arizona as opposed to a resident of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Doesn't the wildlife that resides on federal land deserve the support, financial and otherwise, of all of the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Much also has been said about the GREED of USO. Again, IMHO, the true accusation of greed should be pointed towards the Arizona Game and Fish Department for bullheadedly holding to a program that is so severely discriminatory against non-residents that it has required the intervention of a federal judge. Many of my friends in Arizona have in the past expressed concern that a program that soaks non-residents for 60% of the license fees, while providing only 6% to 8% of the licenses to non-residents, for hunting taking place on federal land, was destined to be overturned in a lawsuit. You reep what you sow.
And while we're talking about greed, I would also include those hotheaded residents who for some reason think it is okay for everyone else to subsidize their hunting on federal land. If the state of Arizona would only increase its resident permit fees to amounts that more closely reflected the value of the animals being hunted, it might reduce some of the incredible flood of applications. Again, my friends in Arizona lament not the number of non-resident hunters in the state, but rather the exceptionally low cost of the resident permits that have encouraged a tidal wave of resident applications.
Finally, I believe that Jim Zumbo should be ashamed of himself for caving-in to the pressure brought on this site and elsewhere. He drew that Unit 10 permit fair-and-square, and it wasn't his fault that the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to pursue a policy that was so severly discriminatory that it begged for a lawsuit.
And for you hotheads that want to say HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN STATE, tell me why that philosophy doesn't lead directly to HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTY, or better yet, HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN BACKYARD. The threat to hunting evidenced from this experience is not the action of USO, but rather the actions of those hunters who want to restrict the hunting on federal land to a chosen few.
And for those of you who seem interested in threatening others to not show their non-resident license plates in Arizona, just be careful you don't end up on the wrong end of my right to keep and bare firearms.
To end, I agree that residents deserve a preference in the drawing of applications in their home states. I enjoy receiving that preference in my home state. But any program that is so grossly discriminatory as Arizona's deserves to be found unconstitutional.
Bring it on.
Contrary to what is often stated on this site, the state of Arizona does not OWN the wildlife found on federal land. The wildlife on federal land is owned by the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, period. The federal government has delegated to the states the authority to manage the wildlife found on federal land (thank God), but this delegation of authority, which can be removed, is expressly for the purpose of providing for the betterment of the wildlife. No resident of Arizona has ever adequately explained how or why it is to the betterment of wildlife on federal land to be hunted by a resident of Arizona as opposed to a resident of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Doesn't the wildlife that resides on federal land deserve the support, financial and otherwise, of all of the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Much also has been said about the GREED of USO. Again, IMHO, the true accusation of greed should be pointed towards the Arizona Game and Fish Department for bullheadedly holding to a program that is so severely discriminatory against non-residents that it has required the intervention of a federal judge. Many of my friends in Arizona have in the past expressed concern that a program that soaks non-residents for 60% of the license fees, while providing only 6% to 8% of the licenses to non-residents, for hunting taking place on federal land, was destined to be overturned in a lawsuit. You reep what you sow.
And while we're talking about greed, I would also include those hotheaded residents who for some reason think it is okay for everyone else to subsidize their hunting on federal land. If the state of Arizona would only increase its resident permit fees to amounts that more closely reflected the value of the animals being hunted, it might reduce some of the incredible flood of applications. Again, my friends in Arizona lament not the number of non-resident hunters in the state, but rather the exceptionally low cost of the resident permits that have encouraged a tidal wave of resident applications.
Finally, I believe that Jim Zumbo should be ashamed of himself for caving-in to the pressure brought on this site and elsewhere. He drew that Unit 10 permit fair-and-square, and it wasn't his fault that the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to pursue a policy that was so severly discriminatory that it begged for a lawsuit.
And for you hotheads that want to say HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN STATE, tell me why that philosophy doesn't lead directly to HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTY, or better yet, HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN BACKYARD. The threat to hunting evidenced from this experience is not the action of USO, but rather the actions of those hunters who want to restrict the hunting on federal land to a chosen few.
And for those of you who seem interested in threatening others to not show their non-resident license plates in Arizona, just be careful you don't end up on the wrong end of my right to keep and bare firearms.
To end, I agree that residents deserve a preference in the drawing of applications in their home states. I enjoy receiving that preference in my home state. But any program that is so grossly discriminatory as Arizona's deserves to be found unconstitutional.
Bring it on.